All posts by Anthony Kanigliero

Commentary

Mrs. Palin, Go Back To Alaska and Stay There

3 Comments

Like many of our fellow Americans, I was caught completely off guard by Senator John McCain’s (Arizona-R) choice of Governor Sarah Palin (Alaska-R) for his running mate in the upcoming presidential election.  After reviewing her policies, and McCain’s alternatives, it has become painfully and frightfully clear why she was chosen.  I use the words painfully and frightfully with the utmost deliberateness, because if the Republican ticket wins this election, it means three things: (1) a George Lucas-esque “Return of the Oil Companies”, (2) an assault on the idea of social progress, and (3) the continuation of dishonest, manipulative, and coercive federal politics.  In other words, if McCain-Palin wins, buy a hat and hold the fuck onto it.

McCain needed a boost prior to his nomination of Sarah Palin.  His other choices, with the exception of Joe Lieberman (Connecticut-Indep.), would not have given him anything to work with.  Tom Ridge, Mitt Romney, and other wealthy, old, white men would not fit the bill, because they did not add anything but an increased tax bracket to the McCain ticket.  So, the critical question is: why Palin and not Lieberman?

For a moment, imagine the clamor among aides at the McCain headquarters on the “Straight Talk Express”.  You have two sides intensely arguing with Senator McCain in the middle, much like his experience in Washington.  One says, “Lieberman: he brings the experience and liberal mindedness to capture those elusive swing voters and independents, as well as his previous supporters from prior presidential bids.  He could steal votes from right under the Democrats’ noses!”  The other group says, “What if we got a woman? What if we stole all those uppity Hilary Clinton supporters who care more about gender than issues? And, most importantly, WE NEED SOMEONE WHO WILL GALVANIZE THE BASE! WE’VE GOT IT…PALIN!”

For all of you who are wondering what it means when pundits spout this phrase, let me play the role of political translator.  It means, “We simply cannot have every social reactionary in the Midwest and the South sit at home rather than vote for McCain, who unfortunately does not hold views from the eighteenth century.” It means, “Our VP choice needs to be someone that mega-churchgoers can stand up (or kneel) for, and the only way to do that is to find someone who thinks the only trinity better than Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost is Guns, Oil, and War.”  It means, “Fuck any attempt at fixing any problems in this country, because winning this election is more important to our friends in large corporations who stand to get fucked straight in their smelly pocketbooks if the Democrats win (at least for a little while).”

Surely, the Republicans among you, if there still are any, are seething.  This won’t help. Sarah Palin is either a moron or in extremely intense denial. There, I said it.  At this day and age, anyone who truly believes after a period of intense thought that: (1) the solution to our energy crisis is more oil drilling, (2) gay people are bad, (3) there is no such thing as global warming,  (4) the protection of the 2nd Amendment is necessary, (5) “hockey mom” is a legitimate qualification for the second highest office in the country, and (6) the war in Iraq is “directed by God” does not have a fully functioning brain or is so tied up in identity politics that they are incapable of rational thought.  If you don’t think that these are her policies, please read The Weekly Standard – I assure you, they are.  If you think that I am a moron for saying this, please continue reading.  Assuming this article, of course, is not being dictated to you because you’re illiterate.

All jokes aside, Palin’s stance on the issues is…well, scary.

Talking Point #1: The Return of Big Oil

Governor Palin has repeatedly supported drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).  Bypassing the whole ‘endangering the caribou’ problem, anyone who thinks that ‘more oil’ is a solution hasn’t really come to terms with the nature of energy policy.  The only way that humanity can survive its ‘Green Challenge’ is to once again become a part of nature by taking out what it puts back in.  Finding oil is not the issue and neither is driving down gas prices.  McCain may pretend he likes wind turbines, but, as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has aptly pointed out in a couple of recent Op-Ed articles, McCain has missed or voted against the last six renewable energy bills.  Why?  That would severely hurt his campaign finances from the conservative business lobbies, who would eat shit if people didn’t use oil anymore.  It’s as simple as that.  Palin is just another example of how the McCain ticket has no regard for the environment or energy policy.  The last time we gave Big Oil the reigns, it didn’t work out so well (See: 2000-2008).  Moreover, Palin’s husband is employed by British Petroleum.  Although I’m sure that won’t effect her decision making at all.

Talking Point #2: The Assault on the Idea of Social Progress

It doesn’t matter what your stance on abortion is.  Blasphemy for a liberal, I know.  But, what is more important is the idea that ideas can evolve.  Not surprising that someone who discounts evolution, would deny it in other contexts, but then again, it should be.  Palin campaigned hard in Alaska to introduce a “Creationist” curriculum in public schools.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  What do scientists have to do, short of inventing an animal that evolves every twenty minutes, to demonstrate that they are not making this up and that the Jews didn’t put them up to it?  Palin also is firmly against gay marriage, something that conservatives like to call a “pro-family” stance.  There is nothing “pro-family” about it.  Palin takes what biblical scripture is interpreted to mean by questionably-in-the-closet pastors and that is the end of the debate.  That is anti-logical and we can no longer support that kind of thinking.  Use your rational faculties to come to decisions based on evidence and we’ll talk.  What does it take to convince people, nearly two thousand years after Aristotle, that logic is actually a legitimate knowledge production device?  It makes me want to pull out my hair.

Talking Point #3: Coercive, Manipulative, and Dishonest Electioneering

McCain’s choice of Palin over Lieberman says one thing most explicitly – I don’t care about representing anyone but me.  Like Lieberman, whose turncoat and extremely eerie speech at the Republican National Convention made even Republicans cringe, McCain has made it clear that he is in it for himself.  He just wants to win.  I get it John, it’s a lot of power.  But maybe for just a moment you can see this as not another righteous battle between you (virtue) and bad (bad).  This is about more than you.  Palin has no function in this election except to get people who you clearly don’t regard very highly – reactionaries.  If you did like them, and if they liked you, you would not need Palin.  You appeal to them because their votes count as much as my vote and that makes them powerful.  As Walther pointed out, President Bush still has a 30% approval rating.  WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? People that John McCain is desperately trying to befriend.  David Brooks of the New York Times claims that McCain saw in Palin a “maverick” nature like his own, accepted it, and looked no further.  They only met once for crying out loud – I don’t think that was it.  Brooks is right, however, that Palin’s space should have been for someone with experience and strategy.  Instead McCain opted for hockey sticks and guns.  I’m holding my breath until after the election.

Commentary

The Issues At Hand, #1 – The Second Amendment

19 Comments

As much as I enjoy reading every pundit say this and that about Barack Obama and John McCain, I think that it would be much more productive to actually address specific issues.  I don’t really care whose baby Sarah Barracuda’s daughter is having, unless of course it is Alf’s.  As much of a head rush I get from listening to Barack Obama speak, what is the point of agreeing with someone because they are charismatic?  That seems to me to be a dangerous method for making decisions and quite similar to the herd-mentality embraced by Republicans that us so-called Liberals decry.  That is why I am launching an ongoing column, in many parts, called “The Issues At Hand”.  Today, I’m going to analyze what appears for some reason to be a continued talking point in the presidential election – the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Conservatives that compose the “base” of the Republican Party seem extremely intent on continuing to possess firearms, while Democrats have pointed out that guns are for shooting people.  I have chosen this issue first, because, in my opinion, it isn’t very difficult to poke fun at.

John Kerry, Idiot

This is the full text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Talking Point #1: “Guns are important because they allow me to defend myself from a possible dictatorship.”

I have bad news for anyone who thinks that having an assault rifle or grenade launcher is going to the stop an aggressive American federal government.  They have these things.  One is called the Air Force, the other is called the Navy.  As much power as you feel from gripping your sweaty Republican hands against some American Steel, at this point there is simply no way of ever standing up to the US military.  This is a lost cause.

More importantly, any scenario where the US government “comes after” its citizens either collectively or in part is well beyond highly improbable.  When I say “comes after”, I mean anything that would warrant opening fire on them as they come tanking down Cherry Street to your lovely home.  Let’s say they have some completely unjust reason to pursue you, like being “X” minority.  Is the general idea that you’re going to start killing federal marshalls until they leave you alone?  Wouldn’t it be better just to get arrested and let the other citizens of the country try to save you?  Even if a 1984 state comes to power, it could only happen with the support of the citizenry of the United States.  As a democratic state, if crazy people take office, it’s because we put them there.  It’s almost like this is some huge catch-22: “I need to protect myself from crazy government officials with a gun, but the only way I can keep having a gun is to vote for crazy government officials. Fuck!”  So, short of everyone democratically deciding to hunt your ass down, having a gun isn’t going to save you from any action brought by the federal government.  Stop deluding yourself.  Even under the guise of a “state’s rights” argument, this is ludicrous.  I’d love to see the Texas Air Force compete with the US Air Force.  What would that last, like five minutes?  To those of you who might be saying, “Well, doesn’t that mean we should just arm our states more?”  To which I reply, (1) with what money, (2) we’ll still lose, and (3) internal arms races have not historically proven helpful at keeping a state unified.  The text shown above only appears to support the maintenance of “state militias”.  If you want to join the National Guard, I think that is what the Second Amendment protects.  But having an AR-17 in your closet is not a “state militia”.

Talking Point #2: “I have a gun to protect me from when the Russians/Chinese/aliens invade!”

Yeah, that’s how it’s going to go down.  The Russo-Sino-ETs are going to land their ships on the coasts and start pouring in.  Then it will be every person for themselves as martial law grips the country and one man must save America using only his wits, a gun, and some dental floss.  I don’t think so MacGuyver.  Remember that military we have?  I think that they can handle it.  If you honestly think there is a probability that they cannot, don’t you think that in that situation the feds would just start handing out weapons to everyone?  If we had a draft for a proxy war in Vietnam, can you imagine what would happen if the US was actually on the brink of falling to a foreign state?  I think it would be a credible assumption to say that the military would get us involved if they thought they had to.

Talking Point #3: “I have a gun for self-defense from criminals.”

This is a slightly more compelling argument, but only because the last two involved the US military attacking its citizens and alien invasions.  Every study ever done has shown that the only person you’re likely to shoot is a member of your family.  Carrying a Derringer in your purse isn’t going to help you get out of a sticky situation anyway.  Unless you have a serious Annie Oakley complex, drawing on someone in the street doesn’t seem like a safer option.  The conservatives reply, “That’s why we train at shooting ranges.”  I have a better idea, become a police officer.  From what I’ve seen, it’s not that hard to get in.

Talking Point #4: “YEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAW!!!! Hunt me up some animals.”

This final point is what I believe all of this to really be about.  People like guns because you can use them to shoot a twelve-point buck with a forty odd scope at two hundred yards.  This right to hunt animals, however, clearly falls into that category of “not fucking important at all unless you’re an egomaniac” category.  Could it be fun?  Sure.  Are there positive benefits to hunting?  Sure.  Do these pros outweigh any of the cons?  Absolutely not.  There is simply no need to have guns available to the general population for hunting.  As for “keeping populations in check”, volunteer for the Forestry Service.

Final Talking Point:  This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

This is the most “history-defunct” Amendment to the Constitution.  I say “history-defunct” because the Second Amendment is the perfect example of something that used to be important, then lost its necessity and became a burden.  Two hundred years ago, when the Britons were all up in our shit – i.e. the War of 1812 – the Second Amendment looked pretty damn compelling.  One hundred and fifty years ago, when white Southerners tried to secede to maintain slavery – the Second Amendment made sense (wait, aren’t most pro-gun advocates white Southerners?).  Since then, however, a few things have happened.  Like planes.  And nuclear deterrence.  Not to mention that the unified nature of the US government has made state militias irrelevant anyway.  The Founding Fathers wanted America to survive in the face of violence.  Guns allow you to do that.  That is, however, what the military and police are for.

Commentary

A Coda for the Disillusioned

9 Comments

I recently read the post entitled “A Requiem for the Disillusioned” and I find myself troubled and confused.  I am troubled and confused because I cannot understand how this raving indictment of “the culpable and their children”, which is nothing more than directionless angst, is the highest rated post on this “thought collective”.  I would like to bring “thought” back to this discussion.  Apart from its melancholy rhetorical flourishes, this article attempts to address no specific issue or audience in any coherent fashion, but instead makes vast, sweeping, and uninformed generalizations about “education”, “complicity”, and “fear” that are just as offensive as the instances of cruelty and derision it decries.  Your veiled threats and appeals to mass power are offensive.  You speak for everyone as no one.  I simply will not allow these threats to stand without an informed response.  Whoever this moniker refers to, let me say this at the beginning – I understand where you are coming from and empathize with your assumed plight.  However, this article is simply not helping anyone go anywhere that is better than the status quo that you, very clearly, reject outright.  I don’t really know where to begin, except, of course, with the beginning of this vapid article:

“To the culpable and their children, You fled, brothers and sisters. You fled from dark faces, dirty places. You fled for safety. You fled for the hope of a separate, improved education. You fled diversity. You sought the white picket fence. You felt derision so you sought division. Now you find yourself in a quandary. The very same isolation you required will be your death.”

As for the pleasant introduction to your intended audience, I’m going to pretend you were talking to me – something we in the writing biz like to call a “real audience.”  It must be very nice to know exactly who is to blame for the world’s problems. Is there a list you have?  Does George Bush have it? Like Santa Claus?  No list?  Oh, I see – you must be the Decider.  Please let me apologize for everyone who is “culpable”, we did not know you wrote for questionablesource.com.  While we were busy fleeing from “dark places” and “dirty faces” for “safety”, what precisely were you doing?  I, for one, went to college, after going to high school, after being forcefully enrolled in a state education system, after I was born, after my father inseminated my mother.  From what I’ve heard, that is how it went for my parents too.  And their parents!  It is almost like we are all born into a world with problems that require fixing.  Apparently, this “separate, improved eduation” fulfilled in a sincere attempt to better the world, while living in a house with a nice fence, is complicit with denying “diversity”.  Are you seriously contending that there is a direct link between my private education and racism on my part?  No, of course not.  But your statements are unquestionable, because you are talking to no one.  No one is really easy to pin crimes on, because no one cannot respond.  No one is also quite easy to lay violent rhetoric upon (re: “your isolation will be your death”), because the faceless don’t scream back.  With that said, have We the Culpable failed on some accounts to improve the standard of living for everyone?  Sure.  Have “we” waged horrible wars, have “we” been racist, have “we” been exclusionary? Yes, yes, and yes.  Are you a part of we?  Last time I checked the dictionary, yes.  Shall we continue on this Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ride down the dark tunnel you narrate?

“Our dollar is down but commodities are up. Your fifty-mile commute will drain your precious money like a sieve. Corporations will bleed you dry, making record highs while you endure unprecedented lows. Welcome to the new America. Buy your ticket at the front gate and watch the tragedy unfold! For the first time in the history of this nation, our quality of life threatens to dip below that of our parents. The middle-class chokes as our global power declines. American society stratifies as we calmly abide, hoping the flood doesn’t claim us like it did our neighbors.”

OH GOD, NO!!! NOT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE!!!  Is it possible that perhaps we are doing the right things for a change and our fat bloated lifestyles that you so inherently criticize are receding?  Is it possible that the “unprecedented lows” you speak of only exist on the old normative scale you so despise?  You are clearly an economist because you used the word “commodities”; so try this pancho on for size.  If there is a fixed amount of physical resources that determine and hold the stored value for all of humanity (in addition to labor, which is population determined), then where there is a reduction in the standard of living, there is a net gain for the rest of humanity.  The Dutch know all about high gas prices.  It’s $10 a gallon there – and they somehow don’t need gasoline anymore – because they innovated and knocked off their foreign oil dependency in the 25 years since the gas crisis of the 1970’s.  Maybe the $500 dollars you lost paying for gasoline should motivate you to ride a bicycle instead of threatening the college-educated’s children on some blog.  But… perhaps we are not doing the right things.  Perhaps the “market” (also known as “what society/humanity values”) knows this and may be adjusting our Google-like price to something more sustainable.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t measure my net worth against the price of gasoline.  As for my “precious money”, the falling “dollar”, and our “global power”, I think these statements make the picture of what you are talking about become a little clearer.  You’re not just a crusader for the little guy – you’ve got the Man’s back, because po’ old ‘Merica ain’t such hot shit anymore.  More people are getting voices in the high school dance that we like to call international politics.  That sounds fine to me, and it’s certainly consistent with your critique of destructive power.  As for the corporations acting all corporation-y, what exactly is your beef?  I have a lot of problems with Corporate America, but I’m not sure you know what yours are.  You claim it is stratifying America just like our racist schools – but We the Culpable “calmly abide”.  Do we?  Last time I checked we nominated a black presidential candidate for the first time in history.  Ah, but he is an “elite” a.k.a. “educated”.  Heaven forbid someone educated at a private university like Barack Obama become president; is it possible to re-elect Dubya again?  He wasn’t very educated and he did a fucking bang-up job.  As for “our neighbors”, are you referring to those ambigious “dirty faces” of paragraph’s past?  Just who are they again? Oh right, you never tell us.

“But you did this to us. Can’t you see? Does your heart burn with at least a tinge of guilt?”

No. It does not. I have done nothing to exclude anyone. Why not indict someone real, instead of everyone fake?

“We live in a world where ambivalence is complicity. You are all complicit. We are all complicit. You followed Nixon and Reagan into a new model of segregation. I let you go. You traded Jim Crowe for unofficial bias in homeowners associations and the same socioeconomic divides that have and continue to cut deeper and deeper into America’s flesh. I let you do it. I still let you do it. Beware the flood that will soon cross the hedge and drown your nitrated lawn just like it did your neighbor’s.”

I concur that ambivalence is complicity, but who is “you” and who is “we”?  Who exactly do you speak for, oh great 80’s talking alien-bear?  The good guys?  Of course you do.  That’s such a coincedence, so does everyone who makes rampant generalizations like this. And then the hammer falls. Nixon and Reagan are to blame and so are “we” for following them! There’s this great thing. It’s called progress. I use it to measure how society is doing.  One hundred and fifty years ago, African-Americans were slaves. Forty ago, they were (for the most part) horribly discriminated against, but they were free.  Now they are exlcluded from Homeowner’s Associations, as you claim. I would swap slavery and Jim Crow anyday for discrimination in Homeowner’s Associations. That’s called improvement. That’s called progress. Is it right? Fuck no. Should it continue? Abolutely not. What needs to stop first is the apocalypse waving loonies who keep telling me the world is going to end because something is a problem.  “Beware the flood”?  What does that even mean? Are you coming to kill me? Problems get fixed by people who know and take a stand.  Your article is not a stand; it is a crutch for you to lean on in the face of not knowing.

“Know that despite your hate, your resentment, your revulsion, we will be there to break your fall. This broken fabric is not to be re-sown. It will be discarded. We will start anew as a collective whole. We will embrace you as vigorously as you fled us. We will celebrate together in victory. We will suffer together in defeat. We will live together. Our kids will go to school together. We will fight together. We will cry together. We will die together.”

Thank you, oh merciful one.  Please don’t hurt me what with your flourish of collective pronouns!  Your “we” is meaningless, for you never identify with anyone or anything. Moreover, I am sick of people saying that we have to start over and abandon the framework.  You’re counting on slam-poetry contests to cure the world, I’m going to become a lawyer and prevent conflict through contract arbitration.  That’s called bettering the system. Claiming that throwing it away is the only option is just lazy and egocentric.

“The foundations we construct are not as sturdy as they may seem. We are often fortunate enough to patch up our problems with minor, short-term solutions. The Dutch boy’s finger cannot hold the dam together forever. Sometimes we must deconstruct entirely lest we find ourselves flooded and without recourse. Soon you will knock on our doors. Soon you will seek our help. Soon you will realize that you need us just as we need you.

But first, you will atone. You will repent for running when you should have fought by our side. You will seek forgiveness for your dereliction, and you will decry our abandonment. You will atone for turning our great American wilderness into a sprawling golf course. The few will repent for growing fat on what should have been our collective plenty. But do not fear us. We may harbor resentment, but our grudge will not endure long. In our hearts, we miss you. We want you to return. We need you to return. You are as much a part of our life’s blood as the currency that oxygenates yours.”

Now I’m actually a little afraid of you. What is with the flood imagery?  Are you a terrorist planning to blow up the Hoover Dam?  Tell me you’re going to drown me once, shame on me. Tell me you’re going to drown me four times, shame on you.  As for the American Wilderness, yeah, that’s a problem. Agreed. What is your solution?  More forced drownings?  Just checking. There is this thing called the Yale School of Forestry. Check it out. Atonement? Repentance? Mercy? Is it just me or do you have a seriously messed up God complex?  Is this death threat almost done? Oh good, the last paragraph.

“Know that we await your compassion. We await your contribution. Most of all, we patiently await your return—and make no mistake, your return is coming. So come down from your towers. They are merely fortified vestiges of the feudalism your predecessors overthrew. Open your hearts and walk away from your closed cul-de-sacs. They represent exclusion. You will represent inclusion. Leave your mega churches. They seek to profit from your ignorance and fear. Your body is your church. Your good book lies in your enduring spirit. Let your mouth be the pulpit and let your words contain soul. In death, you will find the wisdom you ignored in life. You cannot flee the mistakes of our forefathers. Foundations must be rebuilt lest your houses of cards collapse entirely.”

Our return is coming? Towers? Church? Feudalism? Closed cul-de-sacs? This is like the Lord of the Rings and Revelations got mashed up by Girl Talk to form some unclear narrative in suburbia.  As for “profiting from…ignorance and fear”, I would say this article did a pretty good job of that.

Peace in the Middle East,

Tony Kanigliero